Royal wedding expert revealed to be American man using fake accent and name

Thomas J. Mace-Archer-Mills Esq. was frequently featured as a royal expert ahead of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s May 19 wedding. (Photo credit: Danny Lawson/AFP/Getty Images)

Move over, Markles. There’s a last-minute contender for the most bizarre royal wedding headline.

As the Wall Street Journal was the first to report, a man claiming to be a British expert on the royal family — with the plummy accent and triple-barreled name to match — has been revealed as an Italian-American from New York.

Though he billed himself as Thomas J. Mace-Archer-Mills Esq. and spoke with a British accent, the royal wedding commenter is actually Thomas “Tommy” Muscatello, who hails from upstate New York.

Muscatello, who gave numerous interviews to international news outlets ahead of the royal wedding and even offered advice on how Meghan Markle could fit in with the “British way,” told the paper that he considers himself to be more of a Brit than an American.

He added that his professional name is derived from the “names of friends and distant relations,” and two elderly Brits have agreed to be honorary grandparents.

Family and acquaintances described Muscatello as a longtime fan of royal history who first tried out a British accent while performing in a high school production of Oliver!

“I said to Tommy: ‘Can’t you speak in your regular American accent?'” his father, Thomas Muscatello Sr., told the paper. “He said it’s hard for him. This is his accent now.”

Muscatello also reportedly ends conversations by saying, “God save the queen.” But though the Bolton Landing, N.Y., native has often boasted of his numerous interviews, his latest brush with fame appears to have left him cold.

According to the U.K. Guardian, he has issued a statement denouncing the Wall Street Journal article as “inaccurate.” The paper is standing by its reporting, however.

“Many of the facts in the article are inaccurate and the Wall Street Journal itself was given many opportunities to ensure that the article was published with the most accurate information available. The WSJ chose not to adhere to the facts or their integrity.”